Last week I wrote about one instance of Prevention magazine using inaccurate language to describe an observational study. Today I found more examples in the May issue – this time inaccurate language used repeatedly in one article, “12 Power Health Moves.”
It tells readers they can “lower risk of dementia 19%” if they “serve fish tonight.”
Or they can “live five years longer” if they “sip some Merlot.”
Or the 400% drop in risk of head and neck cancer by brushing and flossing.
Each of these blurbs came from observational studies, from which you can’t prove cause and effect. Therefore it is simply inaccurate to say you can “lower risk” or “live longer” based on this kind of evidence.
The MSN health and fitness site republished a form of the Prevention article – although with some of the hyperbole stripped away.
I don’t normally see Prevention magazine. I had one of those use-them-or-lose-them frequent flyer point deals where I could subscribe to magazines instead of just throwing the points away. So, Prevention, we’re watching you.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like